Transcript Student Collaborative Group Work on Advanced Course Materials in

Implications of the inclusion of
students collaborative group work on
advanced course materials in
introductory physics courses
Sunil Dehipawala and Vazgen Shekoyan
Physics Department
Queensborough Community College,
CUNY
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Course description
Intervention
Evaluation 1: Course content mastery
Evaluation 2: Physics learning attitudes (CLASS
survey)
• Student feedback
• Summary
Introduction
• Introductory Physics is one of a gateway
courses for engineering technology and other
STEM fields.
• It is difficult to determine the best methods of
teaching physics to improve comprehension of
physics concepts and problem-solving skills.
• Although Physics Education Research (PER) is a
rapidly growing field, not all findings can be
generalized to community college settings.
Collaborative learning
Key components of collaborative learning1:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Positive interdependence
Individual accountability
Face-to-face promotive interaction
Appropriate use of collaborative skills
Group processing
1Johnson,
D. W.; Johnson, R. T.; Smith, K. A. Active Learning: Cooperation in the College
Classroom, (2nd ed.); Interaction Book: Edina, MN. 1998.
Collaborative Group Problem Solving
• University of Minnesota PER team evaluated
the effectiveness of collaborative group work
on solving context-rich problems in recitations
• Positive results were replicated also at a local
community college back in 1990 (sophomorelevel modern physics course)
• Would the results be the same for student
cohort of the year of 2014? For a freshman
course?
Queensborough Community College (QCC),
CUNY
• Open admission policy
• Total enrollment: 16,182 students
• Great diversity:
30% Hispanic, 26% Black, 26% Asian,
8% White, 5% International students
• Remedial needs for freshman cohort (Fall, 2014):
70% in Math
27% in Writing
23% in Reading
• Graduation rates:
3 year graduation rate: 18%
6 year graduation rate: 36.5%
Our Study: Course Description
• Two–semester long algebra-based physics
course for Engineering Technology and
Computer Technology majors
• QCC typically offers 4 lecture sections of the
course with about 30 students in each section.
• Weekly Distribution: 2.5 hours lecture, 1 hour
recitation, 2 hours lab.
• Textbook: Serway & Vuille, “College Physics”.
Intervention
• Two parallel sections were used as Control
and Experimental groups
• Both groups had the same lecture instructor
• Both groups received same weekly homework
assignments (end-of-chapter problems from
the textbook)
• Both groups had access to posted homework
solutions
Intervention
• Both groups had same tests and final
examination.
• Both groups had access to posted homework
solutions.
• Example problems were solved during each
lecture with participation of students in both
sections.
Collaborative group work
• In the experimental section 5 collaborative
groups were formed (4-5 students per group).
• The collaborative groups were required to study
their assigned topic in depth beyond the scope of
the class including solving real-life problems.
• They had to present their work to the class (8
weeks of preparation was given).
• The groups typically met with instructor for 10
minutes each week to discuss their progress and
to get suggestions.
Collaborative Groups and Assigned
Topics
Collaborative Groups
Assigned topics
# of students in the
group
Group 1
1-D motion, Kinematics
4 students (all male)
Group 2
Projectile motion
4 students (1 female)
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Newton’s law of motionFriction, Free body
diagram, Mechanical
Equilibrium
Circular motionGravitation
Work, Energy,
Conservation of Energy
4 students (1 female)
4 students (all male)
5 students (all male)
Grading Collaborative Group work
• 20% of the course grade comes from the
collaborative group work
15% - from presentation
5% - from submitted work
• All members of the group had to know the
material and be prepared to present any part
of their work at the final presentation time.
• One group member’s failure affected other
group members’ grade.
Evaluation: Conceptual understanding
• To evaluate students’ conceptual gains we have
administered pre and post Force Concept
Inventory (FCI) test.
• The groups were equivalent before and after the
intervention (p-values of 0.7 and 0.3,
respectively)
postscore %  prescore %
• Normalized gains: G 
100  prescore %
Experimental G = 0.36
Control G = 0.21
Evaluation: Physics Problem Solving
Exp. N = 21
First Test
Second Test
Third Test
Final Exam
Median
(out of 100)
Median
(out of 100)
Median
(out of 100)
Median
(out of 100)
Contr. N = 29
Exper.
51
p-value
Effect size
Control
45
0.97
Exper.
48
Control
45
0.37
Exper.
45
Control
39
Exper. Contr.
44
45
0.37
0.99
r = 0.13
r = 0.001
Evaluation: Physics Problem Solving
Comparison of collaborative groups’ performance on final exam problems
directly related to their topic.
Proble
m score
Final exam pr. 1
Final exam pr. 2
Final exam pr. 3
Final exam pr. 5
Final exam pr. 4
Grp. 1 The
rest
Grp. 2 The
rest
Grp. 3 The
rest
Grp. 4 The
rest
Grp. 5 The
rest
8
pvalue
4
6
0.01
5
0.26
8
3.5
0.4
0.002
4.2
3.5
0.04
First Test (before intervention)
1.0
Final exam
Groups
Grp.
1
Grp.
Grp. 3
2
Grp.
4
Grp.
5
Grp. Grp. Grp.
1
2
3
Median score (out
of 100)
66.5
50.4
29.5
65.5
63.5
39.5
4
42
48
Grp. Grp.
4
5
24
44
Evaluation: Learning Attitudes
• Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science
Survey (CLASS)
• CLASS PHYSICS is a widely used instrument
designed to measure student beliefs about
physics and learning physics
• 42 5-point Likert scale questions from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”
Evaluation: Learning Attitudes
• For the analysis we have merged Strongly
Agree and Agree responses (as well as
Strongly Disagree and Disagree responses).
• The survey is scored is by comparing students’
responses to responses given by physicists
(experts).
Sample statements from CLASS
 I enjoy solving physics problems.
 Reasoning skills used to understand physics can be helpful to me in my
everyday life.
 Nearly everyone is capable of understanding physics if they work at it.
 Reasoning skills used to understand physics can be helpful to me in my
everyday life.
 Knowledge in physics consists of many disconnected topics.
 When I solve a physics problem, I locate an equation that uses the
variables given in the problem and plug in the values.
 I do not expect physics equations to help my understanding of the ideas;
they are just for doing calculations.
Percentages of CLASS favorable and
unfavorable responses and their shifts
Pre Favorable
%
Post
Favorable %
Pre
Unfavorable
%
Post
Unfavorable
%
Experimental
26
41
42
30
Control
23
29
40
37
• It has been shown that traditional teaching practices result in
the overall decrease of CLASS scores.
• Our experimental group showed significant favorable shifts.
CLASS categories
PI = Personal Interest (do students feel a personal interest/connection to physics?);
RWC = Real World Connections (seeing the connection between physics and real life);
PS - G = Problem Solving General; PS - C = Problem Solving Confidence; PS - S = Problem Solving Sophistication;
SM/E = Sense Making/Effort (for me [the student], exerting the effort needed towards sense-making is
worthwhile);
CU = Conceptual Understanding (understanding that physics is coherent and is about making sense,
drawing connections, and reasoning not memorizing. Making sense of math);
ACU = Applied Conceptual Understanding (understanding and applying a conceptual approach and reasoning in
problem solving, not memorizing or following problem solving recipes).
Student feedback
Students’ rating of their overall experience with
collaborative work for the class:
Student Feedback
Test 1 score versus satisfaction level, from Poor
(level 1) to Excellent (level 5)
6
R² = 0.029
Satisfaction level
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Test 1 score
60
70
80
90
100
Sample survey answers
Q2: What do you like about collaborative work?
It helps built character
The teamwork
It help improve grade
Can get help from others
Well, that you can learn different technique from the peer student. Sometimes
student can explain better than instructor
Everyone participates
I could discuss about/I don’t know or confused about more freely with other
students than the instructor
Learning about problems
I like to work with group
It allows us to work together and correct mistakes
Have time to discuss and learn new things
Everyone feeds off of each other, and you end up learning more when you heard
from different people
Its great. You learn lot more from others
We learn from each other
I like working with people. It gives everybody something to do and if you don’t
know something others will help
More comfortable to work with friends
Others motivate me.
Sample survey answers
Q3: What do you dislike about collaborative work?
Nothing at all
Sometime people won’t do the work
Not everybody do the same work
Some are lazy only want to learn from others and no contributions
None
When nobody can figure out a problem
Hard to find time for everybody to free
Others don’t work
Sometimes people don’t put their weight
Not all work same way
Relying on others
If you work with group you kind of lazy
Working on problems that were not taught well
Time management. Everyone has different schedule
Nothing
Sometimes work load is on one student only. Others don’t do the work
Nothing
Always need to go to other class
Nothing. It is good
Have to cooperate with people
Sample survey answers
Q5: In addition to learning the content of the course, what other skills did you
learn/acquire through the collaborative group work?
How to do better research
How to solve different things
I learned momentum
Helping needy one
Communication skills, being able to work other type of people
Power point
Teamwork
How physics works in everyday life
How to work as a team
Care about others
Appreciate other ideas
Measurement in the lab
How to memorize a formula
Nothing
Learn more about my team
How to communicate
How to learn from one another
Feelings of others
Summary
• Students’ overall final exam grades and conceptual learning
gains were equivalent between the treatment and control
groups.
• However, few collaborative groups outperformed the others on
final exam problems related to their assigned topic.
• There was a striking difference in students’ physics learning
attitudes with experimental group showing significant positive
shifts.
• Surveys showed that students from all-performance level
enjoyed the experience and found it useful (no “poor” ratings
and only one “fair” rating).
Acknowledgments
• We would like to thank PSC-CUNY C3IRG grant
for supporting our project.
• We also would like to thank our colleagues
David H. Lieberman and Tak D. Cheung for
their support in the implementation of this
project and for insightful discussions.